Mol Neurobiol (2017) 54:904 921 DOI 10.1007/s12035-016-9701-0 Behavioral and Biochemical Interaction Between Nicotine and Chronic Unpredictable Mild Stress in Mice G. Biala 1 & K. Pekala 1 & A. Boguszewska-Czubara 2 & A. Michalak 1 & M. Kruk-Slomka 1 & B. Budzynska 1 Received: 9 July 2015 /Accepted: 5 January 2016 /Published online: 18 January 2016 # The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Nicotine, the main component of tobacco smoke, exerts influence on mood, and contributes to physical and psychological dependence. Taking into account frequent concomitance of nicotine abuse and stress, we aimed to research behavioral and biochemical effects associated with nicotine administration in combination with chronic unpredictable mild stress (CUMS). Mice were submitted to the procedure of CUMS for 4 weeks, 2 h per day. Our results revealed that CUMS-exposed animals exhibited behavioral alteration like anxiety disorders in the elevated plus maze (EPM) test, the disturbances in memory in the passive avoidance (PA) test and depressive effects in the forced swim test (FST). Moreover, nicotine (0.05 0.5 mg/kg), after an acute or subchronic administration decreased stress-induced depression- and anxiety-like effect as well as memory deficit. Administration of metyrapone (50 mg/kg), a glucocorticosteroid antagonist, alleviated the depressive effect induced by the CUMS. The biochemical experiments showed decreased values of the total antioxidant status (TAS), activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxidase (GPx) with simultaneously increased in malondialdehyde (MDA) concentration in mice submitted to the CUMS. The same effects were observed after an acute and subchronic nicotine administration within all examined brain structures (i.e., hippocampus, cortex, and cerebellum) and in the whole brain in non-stressed and stressed * G. Biala grazyna.biala@umlub.pl 1 2 Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacodynamics, Medical University of Lublin, Chodzki 4A Street, 20-093 Lublin, Poland Department of Medical Chemistry, Medical University of Lublin, Chodzki 4A Street, 20-093 Lublin, Poland mice confirming pro-oxidative effect of nicotine. Our study contributes to the understanding of behavioral and biochemical mechanisms involved in stress-induced disorders such as depression, anxiety and memory disturbances as well as dual nicotine-stress interactions on the basis of the development of nicotine dependence. Keywords Chronic mild stress. Nicotine. Oxidative stress. Anhedonia. Memory. Mice Introduction Stress is related to mental and neurobiological disturbances [1] and can be described as a state of an organism characterized by an increase in emotional tension caused by threatening factors. Stress can be also defined as a process by which environmental factors (i.e., stressors) disturb the balance whereby the organism reacts to the threat. Internal stressors mostly result from disturbances of body homeostasis, external stressors most frequently result from functioning in particular social conditions. Stressors can activate complex mechanisms of mental and physiological reactions and to a large extent affect the condition of health of an individual. Concerning the possible mechanisms involved, the sympathetic-adrenal system and the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenals axis (HPA) are mostly responsible for the response of an organism to stress reactions [2]. The sympathetic system is activated immediately after the occurrence of a stressor causing an activation of the adrenal medulla and secretion of catecholamines, adrenaline and noradrenaline. These hormones are responsible for stimulation of the organism (increased blood flow to active muscles, intensified mental and physical activity, increased reaction of the circulatory system, intense breathing) resulting in a faster reaction to a danger.
Mol Neurobiol (2017) 54:904 921 905 However, secreted in great amounts for a long time, they may disturb normal functioning of the organism and lead to its exhaustion [3]. The HPA plays a significant role in adaptive processes to stressful conditions [2, 3]. The effects of the HPA axis stimulation appear after several hours and may last even a few days. Activity of the HPA system is regulated by numerous neurotransmitter pathways, among others glutamatergic, -amino butyric (GABA)ergic, serotoninergic, noradrenergic and cholinergic. The HPA axis coordinates and controls secretion of glucocorticosteroids from the adrenal cortex to the blood [2]. Disturbances in the HPA axis functioning occur in many mental diseases, such as, among others, depression and chronic fatigue syndrome. As a result of prolonged activation of the HPA axis, glucocorticosteroids lead to neuronal damage of the hippocampus and frontal cortex, the structures responsible for emotional reactions. It has been shown that a high level of glucocorticosteroids in the blood can damage numerous dopaminergic, glutamatergic and serotoninergic neurons and also can lead to inhibition of the process of neurogenesis. All these changes subsequently result in a reduction of the hippocampus and frontal cortex volumes, which is characteristic of patients with severe depression [2, 4]. Research on pathogenesis of depression, its frequency and serious consequences is still continued. The use of animal models facilitates understanding of pathogenesis, etiology, and symptomatology of depression, examination of many genetic and epigenetic factors leading to this disease and searching for new and effective strategies of its treatment [5]. So far, numerous attempts to create animal models of depression have been made, which enable us to focus on at least certain aspects of the disease [6]. Models of depression are conducted in order to put animals without depression as closely as possible to the clinical situation. Many different models of depression are used in the research conducted at present, including learned helplessness, forced swim test, or social defeat stress [4, 7]. However, the chronic unpredictable mild stress (CUMS) model is the most frequently used and considered one of the most perfect models of depression [4, 6]. Its aim is the induction of the state of anhedonia, which is the main symptom of depression in humans, by subjecting animals to the action of mild stress stimuli [8, 9]. In this model, long-term exposure of experimental animals to various mild unpredictable stressors (i.e., restriction, inversion of the light-darkness cycle, deprivation of water or food, wet litter) is related to significant changes in their behavior. The stimuli which initiate a response to stress, the so-called stressors, usually acting for 2 to 3 weeks, are potentially harmful to the organism and cause acute or chronic physiological reaction to stress [10]. All the behavioral changes induced in animals in this model can be reversed by administration of antidepressants [11]. In the first series of experiments, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between effects of an acute or subchronic nicotine administration and the CUMS in mice using different animal paradigms. In the context of the present study it should be added that, in the search for psychological sources of addiction, particular attention is paid to the role of stress and some common mechanisms of both phenomena. It has been suggested that stress plays a significant role not only in the genesis of addiction but also in maintenance of abstinence [12]. As such, stress is one of the main risk factors in the development of addictions and their recurrence. For instance, it has been found that people s exposure to stressors increases the number of cigarettes smoked, the urge to smoke and the volume of inhaled tobacco smoke [13, 14]. Thus, the relationship between stress and effects of nicotine is not fully coherent and understood. Nicotine, as the main component of tobacco smoke, influences, through central mechanisms, the mood and emotional tension, and also contributes to development of physical and mental dependence. These effects, like in the case of other addictive agents, mostly involve dopaminergic neurons in the mesolimbic system which is a part of the reward system. Cigarette smoking, involving delivery of subsequent amounts of nicotine, causes a subjective feeling of pleasure and becomes a way of dealing with stress in smokers [15]. In certain experimental animal models, it has been demonstrated that chronic and acute stress may aggravate both behavioral as well as neuronal effects caused by administration of nicotine. The data also report that nicotine modifies the influence of stress on anxiety behavior and cognitive processes [16]. Taking into consideration frequent concomitance of nicotine abuse and stress which accompanies daily life, finding actual effects of simultaneous exposure to these factors can have great clinical and toxicological significance. In the second series of biochemical experiments, we aimed to describe alterations in antioxidant barrier of the brain and its selected regions (i.e., prefrontal cortex, cerebellum and hippocampus) in a mouse model of CUMS with and without acute or subchronic nicotine administration. The presence of oxidative stress was validated by the level of tissue total antioxidant status (TAS), activities of some key antioxidant enzymes, like superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxidase (GPx) as well as concentration of malondialdehyde (MDA), the main product of lipid peroxidation. In this context, it has been suggested that up-regulation of the stress hormones, induced by hyperactivation of HPA axis, may induce oxidative stress with the overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) [17]. First of all, cortisol increases oxygen supply to target tissues (including brain) by increasing blood pressure and heart rate. Therefore more oxygen, which is delivered to all tissues, exerts more deleterious effects within cells. Brain is particularly vulnerable to oxidative stress. Weighting 2 % of total body mass it consumes over 20 % of oxygen used by the whole organism. Moreover, it consists of
906 Mol Neurobiol (2017) 54:904 921 abundant polyunsaturated fatty acids that are substrates for ROS [18], and compounds easily undergoing redox reactions like iron ions or ascorbic acid [19]. Secondly, cortisol disturbs electron transport chain by destroying enzymes constituents of certain mitochondrial enzyme complex activities (NADH dehydrogenase complex I, succinate dehydrogenase complex II, cytochrome c reductase complex III, cytochrome c oxidase complex IV) and causing electron leakage. These phenomena liberate free electrons that form reactive species with neutral molecules. Although free radicals at physiological concentrations exert important functions in proper cell functioning, their increased amount may disturb main cellular processes. All cells have special emergency system, which is activated in case of increased free radicals level. The so-called antioxidant barrier consists of two systems: enzymatic and non-enzymatic ones. Antioxidant enzymes cooperate with each other to inhibit excessive production of ROS and to protect against their harmful action. SOD, a key antioxidant enzyme, catalyzes the reaction of superoxide anion radical (O-2) dismutation into oxygen and hydrogen peroxide. Then reduction of hydrogen peroxide to oxygen and water can occur in two different ways with participation of two different enzymes: GPx and catalase (CAT). GPx catalyzes the reaction with expense of glutathione, which is used as electron donor to regenerate the enzyme [20]. Non-enzymatic antioxidant barrier constituents, e.g., ascorbate, coenzyme Q10, vitamin E, and glutathione, are radical scavengers. They directly react with free radicals and detoxify them by removing their radical character throughout electron donation [21]. As the organism developed numerous mechanisms to protect oxidative homeostasis, some internal or external conditions (in form of acute or chronic stimuli) may disturb the equilibrium, causingoxidativestress.insuchasituation,rosattackmain cellular constituents, like DNA, proteins or lipids, to destroy them. Oxidative stress induces lipid peroxidation, which destabilizes membranes and may cause cell death in every brain region [17]. The level of lipids peroxidation can be monitored by the concentration of the end product of the process, i.e., MDA level. In total, both series of our complementary experiments for the first time aimed to evaluate behavioral and biochemical impact and complex relationship between nicotine and the CUMS, critical for the development and maintenance of nicotine dependence. Materials and Methods Ethics Statement All experiments were conducted according to the National Institute of Health Guidelines for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and to the European Community Council Directive for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of 24 November 1986 (86/609/EEC). The protocol was approved by the Committee on the Ethics of Animal Experiments of the Medical University of Lublin (Permit Number: 43/2013). All efforts were made to minimize animal suffering and to reduce the number of animals used. Animals The experiments were carried out on naive male Swiss mice (Farm of Laboratory Animals, Warsaw, Poland) weighing 20 25 g at the beginning of the experiments. The animals were maintained under standard laboratory conditions (12 h light/ dark cycle, room temperature 21 ± 1 C) with free access to tap water and laboratory chow (Agropol, Pulawy, Poland) and were adapted to the laboratory conditions for at least 1 week. Each experimental group consisted of 8 12 animals. Different mice were used for each drug and time treatment. Drugs The following compounds were tested: ( ) nicotine hydrogen tartrate (0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.5 mg/kg, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), and metyrapone (50 mg/kg, Tocris Bioscience, UK). Drugs were dissolved in saline solution (0.9 % NaCl). Nicotine was administered subcutaneously (s. c.) whereas metyrapone was administered intraperitoneally (i. p.) at a volume of 10 ml/kg. Drug doses refer to the salt form. The ph of the nicotine solution was adjusted to 7.0. Fresh drug solutions were prepared on each day of experimentation. Control groups received saline injections of the same volume and via the same route of administration. The range of doses of drugs was chosen based on literature data [22, 23], our recently published articles [21, 24] and preliminary studies. Experimental Protocols Mice subjected to the CUMS procedure (further described in details) were called as stressed mice. Unstressed mice were exposed to behavioral tests, and not subjected to the CUMS. Nicotine was administered 30 min before behavioral test and/ or chronically 30 min before CUMS procedure to stressed as well as to unstressed control mice. Metyrapone was administered 60 min before behavioral tests. Behavioral testing was done in independent groups of mice on the 28th day. At the beginning of the experiments, mice were randomly divided into different groups (8 12 mice in each group). Group I consisted of unstressed control and saline/nicotine/ metyrapone administered mice (acutely, on the 28th day); group II comprised unstressed control mice administered saline or nicotine subchronically (once a day, on the 15 27th day and on the test day); group III consisted of stressed control
Mol Neurobiol (2017) 54:904 921 907 and saline/nicotine/metyrapone administered mice (acutely, on the 28th day); group IV consisted of stressed control mice administered saline or nicotine subchronically (once a day, on the 15 27th day and on the test day). CUMS Procedure The CUMS protocol was performed as described previously [8, 25, 26] with minor modifications. In brief, mice were subjected to different kinds of mild stressors, which varied from day to day to make the stress procedure unpredictable. These stressors were randomly scheduled over a 1-week period and repeated throughout the 4 weeks experiment for 2 hs daily. There were a total of seven stressors: (1) lack of litter; (2) cage shaking; (3) lights on overnight; (4) damp sawdust overnight; (5) food deprivation overnight; (6) an electric buzzer, 90 db for 5 min; (7) tilted cage at 45. Non-stressed mice were left undisturbed in their home cages. Twenty-four hours after the end of the CUMS protocol, all animals were exposed to one of the behavioral paradigms described below. Forced Swim Test The forced swim test (FST) was as described by Porsolt et al. [7]. In brief, each mouse was placed individually in a glass cylinder (height 25 cm, diameter 10 cm) containing 10 cm of water at 23 25 C. Mice were placed in the water and forced to swim for 6 min. The duration of immobility was recorded during the last 4 min of the 6 min test. A mouse was considered to be immobile when it stopped struggling and passively moved to remain floating and keep its head above water. Water was changed between trials and temperature was maintained at 23 25 C. Immediately after the test, mice were covered by a dry towel and then placed under a heating lamp until they were dry. Elevated Plus Maze Test The experimental apparatus was shaped like a plus sign and consisted of a central platform (5 5 cm), two open arms (30 5 cm) opposite to each other and two equal-sized enclosed (30 5 15 cm) arms opposite to each other. The maze was made of dark Plexiglas, elevated to a height of 50 cm above the floor and illuminated by a dim light. The used procedure was chosen based on our recently published data [21, 24] and to the method of Lister [27]. Anxiolytic activity was indicated by an increase in time spent on the open arms or in number of entries to the open arms; anxiogenic effects were characterized by a decrease in those measures. The percentage of time spent on the open arms was calculated, just as was the percentage of entries into the open arm. Additionally, the number of enclosed arm entries was recorded as the indicator of motor activity of tested animals. Passive Avoidance Test The apparatus and used procedure was described in detail in our previous article [21]. The apparatus consisted of two-compartment acrylic box with a lighted and darkened one. The light chamber was illuminated by a fluorescent light (8 W) and connected to the dark chamber which was equipped with an electric grid floor. Entrance of animals to the dark box was punished by an electric foot-shock (0.2 ma for 2 s). On the 1st day of training (pre-test), mice were placed individually into the light compartment and allowed to explore the light box. After 30 s, the guillotine door was raised to allow the mice enter the dark compartment. When the mice entered this dark compartment, the guillotine door was closed and an electric foot-shock (0.2 ma) of 2 s duration was immediately delivered. The latency time for entering the dark compartment was recorded (TL1). In the subsequent trial (retention) 24 h later, the same mouse was again placed individually in the light compartment of the apparatus and the time taken to re-enter the dark compartment was recorded (TL2). No foot-shock was applied in this trial. The experimental procedure involved examination of memory acquisition (the animals received injections of the substance before pre-test) [28, 29]. It should be noted that doses of nicotine, i.e., active dose causing an antidepressant effect in the FST, inactive dose in the elevated plus maze (EPM) and procognitive dose (after an acute administration) in the passive avoidance (PA) test have been chosen according to the literature data and our previous experiments [21, 24, 29 31]. For subchronic injections, doses of nicotine have been slightly lower as compared to those administered acutely. Collection of Tissues Immediately after the behavioral tests, mice were sacrificed by decapitation and the whole brain was carefully taken out and rinsed in ice-cold saline to remove blood. The cerebellum, cerebral cortex, and hippocampus were rapidly dissected. The whole brain as well as isolated structures was used for the study. Preparation of Brain Homogenates The collected tissues were homogenized in 10:1 (vol:wt) chilled Tris buffer (ph 7.4) on ice for 20 s and centrifuged at 10000 g for 10 min at 4 C to separate nuclear debris. The supernatant was collected and used for further study. TAS, activity of SOD and GPx as well as MDA level were determined from these supernatants spectrophotometrically with use of HITACHI 2800 apparatus and microplate reader EPOCH.
908 Mol Neurobiol (2017) 54:904 921 Determination of MDA Concentration Lipid peroxidation was analyzed by determination of MDA concentration using thiobarbituric acid (TBA) reaction [32]. Briefly, 0.5 ml of tissue homogenate supernatant was mixed with 2.5 ml 1.22 M TCA in 0.6 M HCl and allowed to stand for 15 min. Then 1.5 ml of 0.9 % TBA was added and the mixture was incubated for 30 min in a boiling water bath. After cooling, 4 ml of n-butanol was added and the mixture was shaken variously. The samples were centrifuged at 1500 g for 10 min and then the absorbance of organic phase was measured at 532 nm with respect to blank (n-butanol alone). The concentration of MDA was read from the standard curve obtained by using malonaldehyde bis-dimethylacetal and expressed as μm ofmda/gofwettissue. Determination of TAS TAS of brain homogenates was determined with ready-to-use diagnostic kit TAS by RANDOX (Randox Laboratories Ltd., UK). The method assumes that ABTS (2,2 -Azino-di-[3-ethylbenzthiazoline sulphonate]) produce a radical cation ABTS *+ when incubated with a peroxidase (metmyoglobin) and H 2 O 2. The radical cation has a relatively stable blue-green color, however its production can be suppressed by the addition of antioxidants present in the examined samples. Changes in absorption measured at 600 nm are proportional to the antioxidant concentration in the tissues homogenates. Results are expressed in mmol/l tissue. Determination of SOD Activity The activity of SOD was measured with the use of ready-to-use diagnostic kits RANSOD by Randox. The method employs xantine and xantine oxidase (XOD) to generate superoxide radicals, which react with iodonitrotetrazolium chloride to form red formazan dye. The superoxide dismutase activity is then measured by the degree of inhibition of the reaction. The increase in absorbance at 505 nm is read. Results are expressed in U/g protein. Determination of GPx Activity The activity of GPx was measured with the use of ready-to-use diagnostic kits RANSEL by Randox. This method is based on that of Paglia and Valentine [33]. GPx catalyzed the oxidation of glutathione (GSH) by cumene hydroperoxide. In the presence of glutathione reductase (GR) and NADPH, the oxidized glutathione (GSSG) is immediately converted to the reduced form with a concomitant oxidation of NADPH to NADP+. The decrease in absorbance at 340 nm is measured. Results are expressed in U/g protein. Determination of Protein Content The protein content was determined by the Bradford method [34] using BSA as the standard. Statistical Analysis The data were expressed as the means ± standard error of the mean (SEM). The statistical analyses were performed by the one-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Post hoc comparison of means was carried out with the Tukey s test for multiple comparisons, when appropriate. The confidence limit of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. For the memory-related responses, the changes in PA performance were expressed as the difference between retention and training latencies and were taken as a latency index (IL). IL was calculated for each animal and reports as the ratio: IL ¼ ðtl2 TL1Þ=TL1 TL1 the time taken to enter the dark compartment during the training TL2 the time taken to re-enter the dark compartment during the retention test. All statistical tests were performed using GraphPad Prism version 5.01 for Windows (GraphPad Software, USA). Results Depression-like Behavior in Unstressed and Stressed Mice in the FST; Effects of Nicotine and Metyrapone Figure 1 describes the effect of an acute administration of nicotine in stressed (i.e., subjected to the CUMS protocol) and unstressed mice in the FST (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(1,41) = 11.05, P = 0.0019], treatment effect [F(1,41) = 25.01, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(1,41) = 1.41, P = 0.3133]). A post hoc analysis showed that the exposition to the CUMS protocol increased immobility time in stressed mice as compared to unstressed control (P <0.05). Furthermore, an acute treatment with nicotine (0.2 mg/kg) significantly decreased the immobility duration of stressed mice as compared with the stressed saline-treated group (P < 0.01). Nicotine also significantly reduced duration of swimming in unstressed mice as compared with the unstressed saline-treated group (P <0.05). Figure 2 shows the effect of a subchronic administration of nicotine in stressed and unstressed mice in the FST (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(1,37) = 16.46, P =0.0002], treatment effect [F(1,37) = 17.58, P = 0.0002] without interaction effect [F(1,37) = 0.01, P = 0.9420]). A post hoc analysis further confirmed that the exposition to the CUMS protocol
Mol Neurobiol (2017) 54:904 921 909 immobility time [s] 200 150 100 50 * * && CUMS control immobility time [s] 250 200 150 100 50 ** ^^^ &&& CUMS control immobility time [s] 0 250 200 150 100 50 0 saline saline (day 15-28) * nicotine 0.2 mg/kg Fig. 1 Effect of nicotine administered acutely in unstressed and stressed mice subjected to the CUMS in the FST. Nicotine (0.2 mg/kg) was administered s.c. 30 min before the test. The values represent the mean ± SEM (n =8 12 mice per group). *P < 0.05 vs. unstressed, saline-treated group; &&P < 0.01 vs. stressed, saline-treated group (Tukey s post hoc test) increased immobility time in stressed mice as compared with unstressed control (P < 0.05). Furthermore, repeated treatment with nicotine (0.1 mg/kg) significantly changed the immobility duration of stressed mice as compared to the stressed saline-treated group (P < 0.05) and with unstressed mice, after subchronic nicotine treatment (P <0.05).Nicotine also significantly reduced duration of swimming in unstressed mice as compared with the unstressed saline-treated group (P <0.05). Figure 3 presents the effect of an acute administration of metyrapone in stressed and unstressed mice in the FST (two-way ANOVA: treatment effect [F(1,41) = 73.40, P < 0.0001] and interaction effect [F(1,41) = 385.53, * &^ nicotine 0.1 mg/kg (day 15-28) CUMS control Fig. 2 Effect of nicotine administered subchronically (day 15 27) in unstressed and stressed mice subjected to the CUMS in the FST. Nicotine (0.1 mg/kg) was administered s.c. 30 min before the CUMS procedure as well as to unstressed control mice and additionally 30 min before the FST. The values represent the mean ± SEM (n =8 12 mice per group). *P < 0.05 vs. unstressed, saline-treated group, &P <0.05 vs. stressed, saline-treated group; ^P < 0.05 vs. unstressed, nicotinetreated group (Tukey s post hoc test) 0 saline metyrapone 50 mg/kg Fig. 3 Effect of metyrapone in unstressed and stressed mice subjected to the CUMS in the FST. Metyrapone (50 mg/kg) was administered i.p. 60 min before the test. The values represent the mean ± SEM (n =8 12 mice per group). **P < 0.01 vs. unstressed, saline-treated group; &&&P < 0.001 vs. stressed, saline-treated group; ^^^P < 0.001 vs. stressed, metyrapone-treated group (Tukey s post hoc test) P < 0.0001] without condition effect [F(1,41) = 1.42, P = 0.2398]). A post hoc analysis further confirmed that the exposition to the CUMS protocol increased immobility time in stressed mice as compared with unstressed control (P < 0.01). Furthermore, an acute treatment with metyrapone (50 mg/kg) significantly decreased the immobility duration of stressed mice as compared with stressed, saline-treated group and unstressed, metyrapone-treated group (P <0.001). Anxiety-like Behavior in Unstressed and Stressed Mice in the EMP; Effects of Nicotine Figure 4 presents the effect of an acute administration of nicotine in stressed (i.e., subjected to the CUMS protocol) and unstressed mice on the percentage of time spent on the open arms (two-way ANOVA: treatment effect [F(1,26) = 81.47, P < 0.0001], interaction effect [F(1,26) = 33.23, P < 0.0001] without condition effect [F(1,26) = 0.06, P =0.8017]) as well as the percentage of open arm entries (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(1,36) = 11.47, P = 0.0017], treatment effect [F(1,36) = 235.48, P < 0.0001] and interaction effects [F(1, 36) = 278.49, P < 0.0001]). A post hoc analysis showed that the exposition to the CUMS protocol decreased the percentage of time spent on the open arms (Fig. 4a) and the percentage of open arm entries (Fig. 4b) in stressed mice as compared with unstressed control (P < 0.05). Furthermore, an acute treatment with nicotine (0.5 mg/kg) significantly increased both values in nicotine-treated stressed mice as compared with the control saline-treated group (P <0.001)(Fig. 4a, b). The percentage of open arm entries was also increased in nicotine-treated stressed mice as compared with the nicotine-treated unstressed group (P < 0.01) (Fig. 5b). However, there was no influence
910 Mol Neurobiol (2017) 54:904 921 a % Open Arm Time b % Open Arm Entries 25 20 15 10 5 0 50 40 30 20 10 0 saline saline * * &&& nicotine 0.5 mg/kg &&& ^^ nicotine 0.5 mg/kg CUMS control CUMS control Fig. 4 Effect of nicotine administered acutely in unstressed and stressed mice subjected to the CUMS on percentage of time spent in open arms (a) and percentage of open arm entries (b) in the EPM test. Nicotine (0.5 mg/kg) was administered s.c. 30 min before the test. The values represent the mean ± SEM (n =8 12 mice per group). *P <0.05 vs. unstressed, saline-treated group; &&&P < 0.001 vs. stressed, salinetreated group; ^^P < 0.01 vs. unstressed, nicotine-treated group (Tukey s post hoc test) on anxiety-like behaviors in nicotine-treated (0.5 mg/kg) unstressed mice. Figure 5 shows the effect of a subchronic administration of nicotine in stressed and unstressed mice on the percentage of time spent on the open arms (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(1,40) = 27.72, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1, 40) = 20.16, P < 0.0001], with interaction effect [F(1,40) = 161.58, P < 0.0001]) as well as the percentage of open arm entries (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(1,41) = 103.72, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,41) = 102.39, P < 0.0001] with interaction effect [F(1,41) = 69.13, P < 0.0001]). A post hoc analysis showed that the exposition to the CUMS protocol decreased the percentage of time spent on the open arms (Fig. 5a) and the percentage of open arm entries (Fig. 5b) in stressed mice as compared with unstressed control (P <0.01). Furthermore, subchronic treatment with nicotine (0.1 mg/kg) significantly increased the time spent on the open arms (P < 0.01) (Fig. 5a) and the percentage of open arm entries (P < 0.001) (Fig. 5b) in nicotine-treated stressed mice as a % Open Arm Time b % Open Arm Entries 25 20 15 10 5 0 50 40 30 20 10 0 saline (day 15-28) saline (day 15-28) ** ** && nicotine 0.1 mg/kg (day 15-28) &&& nicotine 0.1 mg/kg (day 15-28) CUMS control CUMS control Fig. 5 Effect of nicotine administered subchronically (day 15 27) in unstressed and stressed mice subjected to the CUMS on percentage of time spent in open arms (a) and percentage of open arm entries (b)inthe EPM test. Nicotine (0.1 mg/kg) was administered s.c. 30 min before the CUMS procedure as well as to unstressed control mice and additionally 30 min before the EPM. The values represent the mean ± SEM (n =8 12 mice per group). **P < 0.01 vs. unstressed, saline-treated group; &&P < 0.01 and &&&P < 0.001 vs. stressed, saline-treated group (Tukey s post hoc test) compared with the control saline-treated group. However, there was no influence on anxiety-like behavior in nicotine-treated (0.1 mg/kg) unstressed mice. Moreover, the CUMS protocol as well as an acute or subchronic nicotine injection to stressed and unstressed mice did not provoke any changes in number of enclosed arm entries in the EPM, thus causing no changes in the locomotor activity of animals (P > 0.05, post hoc Tukey s test) (Table 1). Memory-Related Behavior in Unstressed and Stressed Mice in the PA Task; Effects of Nicotine Figure 6 presents the effect of an acute administration of nicotine in stressed (i.e., subjected to the CUMS protocol) and unstressed mice in the PA task (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(1,35) = 34.47, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,35) = 198.38, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect
Mol Neurobiol (2017) 54:904 921 911 Table 1 Mean number (± SEM) of enclosed arms entries in the EPM test in stressed or unstressed mice treated acutely (A) or chronically (B) with nicotine; n =8 12 A Treatment CUMS Unstressed control CUMS+ nicotine 0.5 mg/kg Control + nicotine 0.5 mg/kg The number of enclosed 10.600 ± 1.087 8.500 ± 1.493 10.130 ± 0.581 8.286 ± 0.918 arms entries B Treatment CUMS Unstressed control CUMS+ nicotine 0.1 mg/kg (day 14 27) The number of enclosed arms entries Control + nicotine 0.1 mg/kg (day 14 27) 11.020 ± 1.220 9.100 ± 1.236 11.230 ± 0.623 13.020 ± 0.7901 [F(1,35) = 1.41, P = 0.2423]). A post hoc analysis showed that the exposition to the CUMS protocol decreased IL value in stressed mice as compared with unstressed control (P < 0.05). Furthermore, an acute treatment with nicotine (0.5 mg/kg) significantly increased IL value in stressed mice as compared with the stressed saline-treated group (P < 0.01). Nicotine also significantly increased IL value in unstressed mice as compared with unstressed saline-treated group (P <0.05). Figure 7 shows the effect of a subchronic administration of nicotine in stressed and unstressedmiceinthepatask (two-way ANOVA: treatment effect [F(1,38) = 39.23, P < 0.0001], interaction effect [F(1,38) = 99.22, P < 0.0001], without condition effect [F(1,38) = 0.00, P = 0.9889]). A post hoc analysis showed that the exposition to the CUMS protocol decreased IL value in stressed mice as compared with unstressed control (P < 0.05). Furthermore, subchronic treatment with nicotine (0.05 mg/kg) significantly increased IL value in stressed mice as compared with the stressed saline-treated group (P < 0.01). However, there was no influence of nicotine treatment on IL value in unstressed mice. Oxidative Stress Biomarkers in Brain and its Particular Structures in Unstressed and Stressed Mice; Effects of Nicotine Table 2 shows effects of the CUMS and an acute administration of nicotine in stressed and unstressed mice on chosen markers of oxidative stress. Data are presented for TAS: in the whole brain (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3, 72)=16.57, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72)= 32.48, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3,72) = 0.41, P = 0.7494]) as well as in single structures as cerebellum (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 31.01, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 217.67, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3,72) = 0.51, P = 0.6800]), hippocampus (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 14.84, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 24.65, P < 0.0001] Index of latency (IL) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 saline * * && nicotine 0.5 mg/kg CUMS control Fig. 6 Effect of nicotine administered acutely in unstressed and stressed mice subjected to the CUMS in the PA task. Nicotine (0.5 mg/kg) was administered s.c. 30 min before the pre-test. The values represent the mean ± SEM (n =8 12 mice per group). *P < 0.05 vs. unstressed, saline-treated group; &&P < 0.01 vs. stressed, saline-treated group (Tukey s post hoc test) Index of latency (IL) 10 8 6 4 2 0 saline (day 15-28) * && nicotine 0.05 mg/kg (day 15-28) CUMS control Fig. 7 Effect of nicotine administered subchronically (day 15 27) in unstressed and stressed mice subjected to the CUMS in the PA task. Nicotine (0.05 mg/kg) was administered s.c. 30 min before the CUMS procedure as well as to unstressed control mice and 30 min before the PA test. The values represent the mean ± SEM (n =8 12 mice per group). *P < 0.05 vs. unstressed, saline-treated group; &&P <0.01 vs. stressed, saline-treated group (Tukey s post hoc test)
912 Mol Neurobiol (2017) 54:904 921 Table 2 Effect of the CUMS and nicotine administered acutely in unstressed and stressed mice subjected to the CUMS on chosen parameters of antioxidant barrier and process of lipids peroxidation. Nicotine (0.1, 0.2, and 0.5 mg/kg) was administered s.c. 30 min before the CUMS procedure as well as to unstressed control mice on 28th day of the experiment Tissue Non-stressed Stressed Saline Nic 0.1 Nic 0.2 Nic 0.5 Saline Nic 0.1 Nic 0.2 Nic 0.5 TAS Brain 1.843 ± 0.204 1.748 ± 0.206 1.616 ± 0.176 1.416 ± 0.160*** 1.541 ± 0.161** 1.511 ± 0.190 1.431 ± 0.159 1.214 ± 0.189 ## Cerebellum 2.069 ± 0.211 1.967 ± 0.172 1.763 ± 0.154 *** 1.604 ± 0.115*** 1.522 ± 0.172*** 1.466 ± 0.128 1.282 ± 0.142 # 1.171 ± 0.105 ### Hippocampus 1.565 ± 0.176 1.418 ± 0.155 1.333 ± 0.149* 1.206 ± 0.091*** 1.296 ± 0.135** 1.280 ± 0.126 1.242 ± 0.076 1.094 ± 0.160 # Cortex 1.630 ± 0.207 1.518 ± 0.186 1.420 ± 0.123 1.289 ± 0.117*** 1.451 ± 0.143 1.413 ± 0.166 1.231 ± 0.190 1.100 ± 0.149 ### SOD Brain 2.939 ± 0.031 2.759 ± 0.397 2.562 ± 0.221 1.900 ± 0.236*** 1.896 ± 0.334*** 1.931 ± 0.289 1.709 ± 0.208 1.408 ± 0.113 ## Cerebellum 8.605 ± 0.987 8.178 ± 0.987 7.456 ± 0.870 6.191 ± 1.084*** 6.875 ± 1.048** 5.213 ± 1.092 # 5.140 ± 0.719 ## 4.098 ± 0.799 ### Hippocampus 14.71 ± 1.417 14.06 ± 1.460 11.24 ± 1.394*** 8.853 ± 1.188*** 9.091 ± 1.483*** 7.696 ± 1.462 6.864 ± 1.498 # 5.935 ± 0.803 ### Cortex 14.18 ± 1.443 13.44 ± 1.176 10.58 ± 1.632*** 8.496 ± 1.067*** 7.386 ± 1.515*** 6.459 ± 1.426 6.149 ± 1.219 5.870 ± 0.787 GPx Brain 17.14 ± 1.082 15.82 ± 2.246 13.50 ± 1.839*** 10.18 ± 1.574*** 9.524 ± 1.334*** 8.296 ± 1.049 7.642 ± 1.183 6.765 ± 1.486 ## Cerebellum 34.86 ± 2.852 31.10 ± 2.799* 28.23 ± 2.620*** 23.07 ± 2.176*** 15.70 ± 2.564*** 13.64 ± 2.193 12.64 ± 1.708 10.93 ± 1.661 ### Hippocampus 62.12 ± 4.902 59.75 ± 7.355 51.62 ± 5.470* 47.09 ± 6.954*** 35.79 ± 3.795*** 33.00 ± 5.299 31.63 ± 5.624 32.23 ± 12.58 Cortex 66.54 ± 3.707 58.01 ± 5.553 51.90 ± 8.672*** 44.88 ± 6.299*** 35.81 ± 3.619*** 30.44 ± 6.481 24.65 ± 5.607 ## 22.19 ± 5.119 ### MDA Brain 2.450 ± 0.654 3.150 ± 0.565 4.174 ± 1.415* 5.466 ± 1.502*** 5.211 ± 0.857*** 5.621 ± 0.901 7.377 ± 1.372 7.890 ± 1.354 ### Cerebellum 2.171 ± 0.456 2.329 ± 0.365 2.769 ± 0.497 3.177 ± 0.465* 5.633 ± 0.803*** 5.788 ± 0.894 6.146 ± 0.957 6.551 ± 0.642 Hippocampus 1.883 ± 0.269 1.946 ± 0.370 2.258 ± 0.341 2.830 ± 0.236*** 3.317 ± 0.472*** 3.359 ± 0.415 3.578 ± 0.257 3.695 ± 0.261 Cortex 11.62 ± 0.778 15.75 ± 2.495* 18.12 ± 2.798*** 19.38 ± 4.188*** 16.38 ± 3.104** 18.53 ± 3.352 19.50 ± 2.490 21.36 ± 3.239 ## The values represent the mean ± SEM (n =8 12 mice per group). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 vs. unstressed, saline-treated group, # P < 0.05, ## P < 0.01, ### P < 0.001 vs. stressed, saline-treated group (Tukey s post hoc test)
Mol Neurobiol (2017) 54:904 921 913 without interaction effect [F(3,72) = 1.70, P = 0.1754]), and cortex (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 17.67, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 20.62, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(1,72) = 0.31, P = 0.8179]); SOD: in the whole brain (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 36.84, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 201.13, P < 0.0001] with interaction effect [F(3,72) = 4.08, P = 0.0098]) as well as in single structures as cerebellum (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 25.12, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 113.13, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3,72) = 1.47, P = 0.2298]), hippocampus (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 43.20, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 252.45, P < 0.0001] with interaction effect [F(3,72) = 6.19, P = 0.0008]), and cortex (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 30.23, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 316.74, P < 0.0001] with interaction effect [F(1,72) = 12.58, P < 0.0001]); GPx in the whole brain (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 37.59, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 321.08, P < 0.0001] with interaction effect [F(3,72) = 8.33, P < 0.0001]) as well as in single structures as cerebellum (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 43.29, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 927.89, P < 0.0001] with interaction effect [F(3,72) = 8.11, P < 0.0001]), hippocampus (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 7.49, P = 0.0002], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 198.87, P < 0.0001] with interaction effect [F(3,72) = 3.30, P = 0.0250]), and cortex (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 34.19, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 430.41, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(1,72) = 1.61, P = 0.1946]); MDA in the whole brain (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 26.23, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 114.85, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3,72) =0.50,P =0.6839])aswellasinsinglestructuresascerebellum (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72)=12.79, P = 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 479.98, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3,72) = 0.75, P = 0.5268]), hippocampus (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 16.17, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 278.13, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3,72) = 3.12, P = 0.0311]), and cortex (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 17.05, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 17.03, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(1,72) = 1.24, P = 0.3002]). A post hoc analysis showed that the exposition to the CUMS protocol decreased the values of TAS (whole brain P < 0.01, cerebellum P < 0.001, hippocampus P <0.01),activities of SOD (whole brain P <0.001,cerebellumP < 0.01, hippocampus P <0.001,cortexP < 0.001) and GPx (whole brain P < 0.001, cerebellum P < 0.001, hippocampus P < 0.001, cortex P < 0.001) with simultaneous increased in MDA concentrations (whole brain P <0.001,cerebellumP <0.001,hippocampus P <0.001,cortexP < 0.01) in stressed mice as compared with unstressed control. Additionally, nicotine (0.5 mg/kg) decreased TAS value in stressed mice in the whole brain (P < 0.01), cerebellum (P < 0.001), hippocampus (P < 0.05), cortex (P <0.001), whereas nicotine at the dose of 0.2 mg/kg decreased TAS value only in the hippocampus (P < 0.05) as compared with the stressed saline-treated group. Furthermore, in unstressed mice an acute treatment with 0.2 mg/kg of nicotine significantly increased TAS value in the cerebellum (P <0.001)and hippocampus (P < 0.05), and after 0.5 mg/kg in the whole brain and all examined structures (P < 0.001) as compared with unstressed saline-treated group. Moreover, significant decrease in SOD and GPx activity in the whole brain and all examined structures was observed in stressed mice receiving 0.5 mg/kg of nicotine in case of SOD (whole brain P < 0.01, cerebellum P < 0.001, hippocampus P < 0.001) and GPx (whole brain P < 0.01, cerebellum P < 0.001, cortex P < 0.001) in comparison with stressed saline-treated group. Whereas, nicotine at the dose of 0.2 mg/kg decreased SOD value only in the cerebellum (P < 0.01) and hippocampus (P < 0.05) as well as decreased GPx value in the cortex (P < 0.01) as compared with the stressed saline-treated group. Also, nicotine administered at the dose of 0.1 mg/kg decreased SOD value in the cerebellum (P < 0.05). In unstressed mice receiving 0.5 mg/kg of nicotine, significant dose-dependent decrease in antioxidant enzymes activity (SOD and GPx) in the whole brain and all examined structures was observed in case of SOD (P < 0.001) and GPx (P < 0.001) in comparison to unstressed saline-treated group. Whereas, nicotine at the dose of 0.2 mg/kg decreased SOD value only in the hippocampus and cortex (P <0.001)aswell as decreased GPx value (whole brain P <0.001, cerebellum P < 0.001, hippocampus P < 0.05, cortex P <0.001) as compared with the unstressed saline-treated group. Also, nicotine administered at the dose of 0.1 mg/kg decreased GPx value only in the cerebellum (P <0.05). The procedure of CUMS caused statistically significant increase in MDA concentration in stressed mice in comparisontounstressedcontrolgroup(wholebrainp <0.001, cerebellum P < 0.001, hippocampus P < 0.001, cortex P < 0.01). Moreover, nicotine at the dose of 0.2 mg/kg increased MDA value in the whole brain (P <0.05) and cortex (P < 0.001) as compared with the unstressed saline-treated group. Also, nicotine administered at the dose of 0.1 mg/kg increased MDA value only in the cortex (P < 0.05). The stressed animals, receiving the highest dose of nicotine (0.5 mg/kg) exhibited significant increase in MDA concentration in the whole brain (P < 0.001) and cortex (P < 0.01) in comparison to stressed saline group. The increase in MDA level in unstressed mice receiving nicotine at the dose of 0.5 mg/kg (whole brain P <0.001, cerebellum P < 0.05, hippocampus P <0.001, cortex P < 0.001) in comparison to unstressed saline group was also observed.
914 Mol Neurobiol (2017) 54:904 921 Table 3 further presents effects of the CUMS and also a subchronic administration of nicotine in stressed and unstressed mice on chosen markers of oxidative stress. Data are presented for TAS: in the whole brain (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 12.81, P <0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 52.28, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3,72) = 0.47, P =0.7071])aswellasinsinglestructures as cerebellum (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3, 72) = 4.86, P = 0.0039], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 85.45, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3,72) = 0.04, P = 0.9902]), hippocampus (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 13.50, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 43.92, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3,72) = 0.32, P = 0.8111]), and cortex (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 11.89, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 24.13, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(1,72) = 0.77, P = 0.5166]); SOD: in the whole brain (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 16.86, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 156.28, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3, 72) = 1.49, P =0.2239])aswellasinsinglestructuresascerebellum (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 13.64, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 76.08, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3,72) = 1.12, P = 0.3477]), hippocampus (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 26.98, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 206.00, P < 0.0001] with interaction effect [F(3,72) = 7.49, P = 0.0002]), and cortex (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 23.41, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 222.95, P < 0.0001] with interaction effect [F(1,72) = 6.45, P = 0.0006]); GPx in the whole brain (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3, 72) = 16.41, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 482.20, P < 0.0001] with interaction effect [F(3,72) = 3.00, P = 0.0360]) as well as in single structures as cerebellum (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 53.77, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 1226.01, P <0.0001] with interaction effect [F(3,72) = 13.30, P < 0.0001]), hippocampus (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 9.96, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 360.13, P < 0.0001] with interaction effect [F(3,72) = 2.80, P = 0.0460]), and cortex (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 37.62, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 709.90, P < 0.0001] with interaction effect [F(1,72) = 10.44, P < 0.0001]); MDA in the whole brain (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3, 72) = 19.10, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 161.52, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3,72) = 0.18, P = 0.9121]) as well as in single structures as cerebellum (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 7.93, P = 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 602.74, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3,72) = 1.88, P = 0.1398]), hippocampus (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 33.00, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 36.13, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(3,72) = 1.20, P = 0.3163]), and cortex (two-way ANOVA: condition effect [F(3,72) = 18.40, P < 0.0001], treatment effect [F(1,72) = 16.05, P < 0.0001] without interaction effect [F(1,72) = 1.63, P = 0.1888]). A post hoc analysis showed that the exposition to the CUMS protocol decreased the values of TAS (whole brain P < 0.01, cerebellum P < 0.001, hippocampus P < 0.05, cortex P < 0.05), activities of SOD (whole brain P <0.001, cerebellum P < 0.001, hippocampus P <0.001, cortex P <0.001) and GPx (whole brain P <0.001,cerebellumP < 0.001, hippocampus P <0.001, cortex P <0.001) with simultaneous increased in MDA concentrations (whole brain P < 0.001, cerebellum P < 0.001, hippocampus P < 0.01, cortex P < 0.01) in stressed mice as compared with unstressed control. Furthermore, subchronic treatment with 0.5 mg/kg of nicotine significantly increased TAS value in the whole brain (P < 0.001), hippocampus (P < 0.001), cortex (P < 0.001) in unstressed mice as compared with unstressed saline-treated group. Moreover, nicotine (0.5 mg/kg) decreased TAS value in the whole brain (P < 0.05), and hippocampus (P < 0.01) as compared with the stressed saline-treated group. In stressed mice, significant decrease in antioxidant enzymes activity in animals receiving 0.5 mg/kg of nicotine was observed in case of SOD (whole brain P < 0.05) and GPx (cerebellum P < 0.001, cortex P < 0.05) in comparison to stressed saline-treated group, whereas nicotine at the dose of 0.1 mg/kg decreased GPx value (cerebellum P <0.01) as compared with the stressed saline-treated group. Significant dose-dependent decrease in antioxidant enzymes activity (SOD and GPx) in the whole brain and all examined structures was also observed in unstressed mice receiving chronically 0.5 mg/kg of nicotine in case of SOD (P <0.001) and in GPx (P < 0.001) in comparison to unstressed saline-treated group. Whereas, in these mice nicotine at the dose of 0.1 mg/kg decreased SOD value in the whole brain (P < 0.05), cerebellum (P < 0.01), hippocampus (P < 0.001), cortex (P < 0.001) as well as decreased GPx value in the whole brain (P < 0.001), cerebellum (P < 0.001), hippocampus (P <0.05),cortex(P < 0.001) as compared with the unstressed saline-treated group. Also, nicotine administered at the dose of 0.05 mg/kg decreased SOD activity in the hippocampus (P < 0.05) and GPx activity in the cerebellum (P < 0.001), hippocampus (P < 0.05), and cortex (P <0.01). Concerning MDA level, stressed animals, receiving the highest dose of nicotine (0.5 mg/kg) exhibited significant increase in MDA concentration in the whole brain (P < 0.001), cerebellum (P < 0.01), hippocampus (P <0.001), and cortex (P < 0.01) in comparison to stressed saline group. The increase in MDA level of unstressed mice receiving nicotine at the dose of 0.5 mg/kg (whole brain P < 0.001, hippocampus P < 0.001, cortex P < 0.001) in comparison to unstressed saline group was also observed. Moreover, nicotine at the dose of 0.1 increased MDA value in the cortex (P <0.001)ascompared with the unstressed saline-treated group.